Conscience is “fundamental” in the sense that the philosopher itself is the conscious subject
“Fundamental” dosnt have to have a single meaning. From our point of view, we are individually fundamental, from someone else’s we are some Joe Schmo who need not have existed.
How dualistic is “Naturalistic dualism” when conscience is purely passive and epiphenomenal? In my opinion, naturalistic dualism is the most materialistic non-eliminativist worldview
Consider, if you will, dual aspect neutral monism, which is similar, but without the epiphenomenonalism.
In fact, “free will” in my definition is some very specific consequence of conscience and time asymmetry. The fact that the physical system with an attached conscience flow can “affect” reality [=possible Worlds conditional on own body actions], means that it considers some possible futures and choses one of them. The possible futures given own choice are meaningful, but for an external observer that can predict also the evolution of the conscious being [=brain], the choice is as materially determined as the rest of the Universe
Doesnt that amount to saying that free will isn’t really real,but seems real?
“Fundamental” dosnt have to have a single meaning. From our point of view, we are individually fundamental, from someone else’s we are some Joe Schmo who need not have existed.
Consider, if you will, dual aspect neutral monism, which is similar, but without the epiphenomenonalism.
Doesnt that amount to saying that free will isn’t really real,but seems real?